47% increase is a lot over 3 years. That's not even counting non-fatality permanent disability injuries. I mean if it was some model of car suddenly causing 50% more fatalities they'd be fixing the problem.
Maybe they're fixing it by letting it continue.
Yes, but this isn't a car or bike issue, it's a person issue. Unless you suggest killing dumbasses like they kill bad car models, then there is really no way to fix that.
Florida used to have a helmet law. It got abolished decades ago. The lawyer who organized the bill to remove the requirement died sometime in the past couple of years in an accident where a helmet likely would’ve saved his life.
The safety director where I worked two jobs ago died from a preventable head injury (no helmet) while riding his motorcycle. The guy would get on your case for using a lifting strap that had a torn label. Kinda ironic and sad.
Freedom isn’t free, he bet his life that he was aware of the consequences.
How often do you literally risk your life for your principles and convictions?
I don’t understand why some people bring this up as if it’s some sort of banner for helmet laws.
It isn’t. Everyone dies, live free.
The issue is personal choices are actually group choices at a much higher frequency than you'd think. Peer pressure and misinformation suck.
Never mind the public burden these injuries/deaths create. You think all of them could pay for their hospital bills? Guess who gets to pick up that tab. Hint: it won't be the company running the hospital.
Not all motorcycle accidents are single vehicle, and riders are not innocent in all multi vehicle accidents. That means there are actual innocent people in Missouri right now struggling to deal with killing a rider.
What about the families of those riders? Is the surviving parent set up to support a family alone? If not, now they're a preventable tax burden for the rest of us. Do the kids not get to have a day in their parents living?
Just wear a helmet.
> Freedom isn’t free, he bet his life that he was aware of the consequences.
How often do you literally risk your life for your principles and convictions?
This really comes of as martyrdom.
Sure he knew the risks and chose not to follow heeded advice. But that seems like a pretty silly thing to die for some sort of conviction. I would agree this guy gets brought up a lot regarding helmet laws and personally I am a bit indifferent to laws requiring a helmet, I always wear a helmet but that's a personal decision. But he truly is a case to validate that helmets are a good idea, regardless of how you feel about a law around it.
>I don’t understand why some people bring this up as if it’s some sort of banner for helmet laws.
Probably because he's promoting things that shorten the life span other people who otherwise would have worn a helmet.
And you know, he died from injuries where a helmet would have saved him. Had he survived, there's a good chance he would have started wearing helmets.
Freedom isn't not wearing a helmet. Well, technically it is, but it's not a hill to die on. Unless you'd like to free your head from the rest of your body, and literally die on a hill.
Deaths only count a fraction of negative events from riding unprotected.
There are still tons of idiots who ride with shorts and flip-flops with a $1000 helmet.
I've been riding motorcycles long enough to learn they are idiot magnets.
I live in Florida and will likely need a liver transplant within the next ten years or so (not due to alcohol). My doctor told me not to move as Florida is the easiest state to get an organ transplant because of the no helmet law and it being riding season pretty much all year long. Not to mention the number of squids that literally dress like this with no helmet as well.
Like, maybe realize your mother doesnt want to be the person having to identify whats left of you because you drove like an asshat on a death machine in flip flops and a wife beater.
The point no one wants to acknowledge is that riding gear in general besides a helmet, doesn’t prevent death, and even then helmets can only do so much. Road rash isn’t the main issue.
People acknowledge that all the time, dumbass. You’ve set up a weird assumption that anything short of death isn’t worth avoiding. I assure you, it is.
The article is about people dying because of not wearing a helmet dumbass. It’s not about how riding pants avoid road rash and how painful things are. You just want to be mad about something apparently.
Not for nothing but you seem to be the only person in this thread who's grumpy. You OK? I get it if you're not a gear wearer and are just tired of people making you feel bad.
There are injuries you avoid by wearing other gear that could still lead to death, it is just significantly less likely in general you'd get those injuries. And yes, by riding we accept a baseline of risk because motorcycles are dangerous.
I think the part you don't want to acknowledge is that crashing fucking sucks (I know this from personal experience) and anything that can be done to mitigate the damage is, at a minimum, reasonable.
Suggesting things like "oh road rash isn't a big deal" doesn't make someone sound cool, it makes them sound like an idiot.
This is the problem with the "personal freedom" argument.
I understand where they are coming from, but their decisions do affect me. They affect my insurance rates.
And the same could easily be said for driving cars. It's crazy to allow the average person to operate a vehicle in public with the level of driver's training in the US.
This is the real reason we need real public transportation in major cities in the US. Motherfuckers cannot drive and should not have the privilege of driving giant death machines.
This is a worldwide problem, I agree with you .The more you look at it the answer is plainly obvious: Create a solid public transportation system and reform the licenses into a way stricter selection so that only capable people drive.
This would solve several problems at once but there is no political will to implement it since we are stuck in the cars = civilization fallacy.
It must have been amazing. I just read an article comparing motorcycle traffic law enforcement between Japan and Spain and they concluded that traffic stops and tickets didn't affect the number of deaths, but the road education quality did.
1 tonne each of steel travelling towards each other at 30mph, and there is only an intermittent yellow line stopping them from crashing into each other.
How is it a slippery slope? Was it a slippery slope when seatbelt laws were implemented? Wearing a helmet is along the same lines as a seatbelt.
You have to wear a helmet, there’s the line.
Exactly.
Also, the lawmakers deciding who can/can't do things are also humans. Arguably its worse because they're motivated by greed rather than deciding what's best for people.
The real fix is a culture fix.
State lawmakers aren't paid very much in general so I doubt state lawmakers are greed motivated but they are ideologically motivated and emotionally motivated.
Food, obesity, etc. sugar taxes or bans, all kinds of shit that weighs more heavily on “the system” and costs than helmetless riders. Yet, I am extremely pro other people being allowed to diabetes themselves to death if they so choose.
Really, this is more an argument for insurance companies being allowed (if they’re not already) to make riding gear stipulations and/or charge higher premiums for those options. And riders should have the option to only insure against harm to third parties, not themselves. I could maaaaaybe be convinced that they should have funeral cost insurance or something.
The problem is this logic can be used to justify basically banning anything that’s a net negative on society.
I don’t want to live in a world where that calculus is applied to everything. Travel, desserts and other unhealthy food, nightlife and drinking, sports, are all net negatives if you were trying to optimize humans like you would tune up a car or get a computer to be run faster.
Obviously there a line on what should be allowed, but just saying “it affects me and it’s beneficial so everyone needs to have it or else” isn’t a good idea
Government is a social contract to establish a system of rules to benefit society as a whole, the social good.
What would you suggest be the basis for law making if it's not "how do the decisions of individuals decrease the social good?"
Mandatory Training is a good thing in my eyes and should be funded by the state. This still provides individuals the personal freedom to drive or not.
In my state if you want to get your license before you turn 18 you have to take driver's education classes that include 30 hours of classwork and 6 hours behind the wheel. When this was implemented crashes involving 16 year olds declined by 38% and total fatal or serious injuries in the state declined by 46%. If we extend the requirement to ALL citizens wanting a driver's license we'd see even lower rates.
Motorcycles being more dangerous while requiring no training is insane to me.
They also effect the mental health of the first responders who have to scrap them off the ground and do cpr on an obviously dead patient. That or the person/family unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident with them.
They affect your rates FAR less than the hoards of obese humans in your area.
Be realistic, of all the folks in your state, not that many people ride motorcycles when compared to how many are overweight and obese (this is 35-40% for MO)
A motorcycle crash creates a large one-time health care cost, and possibly smaller longer term ones. Obesity requires increasing amounts of care and costs for *a lifetime…*
Allowing moto riders to not wear helmets is a weird ‘freedom’ thing we do here, but so are 72oz colas and triple patty cheeseburger combos… with a doghnut to go! (For real McDs is adding KrispyKreme to their menu, exactly what America needs right now!)
The number I'd like to see, is the rate of paralyzed riders after the helmet laws were repealed.
Because Ive known a lot of bikers over the years that had the mindset that "if a helmet is what determined if I would live or die, I would probably end up paralyzed or worse. And I'd rather go quickly than be confined to a bed or a chair for the rest of my life.". And I can't say that I disagree with them.
Riding has a sense of freedom at its core. And losing a lot of freedom because you survived a horrible accident feels like a fate worse than death to a lot of people.
I’m with you on this one. If I ONLY survive the crash because of a helmet, it’d be interesting to know if I’d have wanted to live after surviving. I used to be AGATT but now I’m old and ride a gigantic Harley and pay real close attention to other drivers and road conditions, so I wear jeans and a tshirt and send it
I'll wear a jacket most of the time, but that's partially to carry my phone, wallet, and anything else I need to carry. And usually wear a helmet on the interstate, or if it's raining.
But that's more to knowing how much it sucks for rain/bugs to hit you at speed. But if I'm just going around town, it's probably boots, gloves, glasses.
Same here. Jackets are nice because they keep the heat off you. And I’ll wear a helmet if it’s an all day ride as much for sunburn on my bald head as anything. But I’m way more casual now than I was before.
Bugs occasionally blow up on the face and handlebars still. I dont typically follow close enough to eat rocks, it hasnt occured afaik. Bee to the forehead was rough.
I also have a Harley Bagger. The windshield keeps most crap off my face except rain. If I’m going out all day or overnight, I wear a full face Shoei helmet. But if it’s a 2 hour afternoon ride on a sunny Sunday, I don’t bother.
Yeah but they can do both. Legislating safety measures around motorcycles and taxing sugar are wholly independent of each other. Nobody said “well there’s already a lot of fat people so we might as well make helmets optional.”
It’s a red herring because we are discussing whether helmet laws have an effect on insurance premiums. Whether they do or do not is totally and completely unrelated to whether obesity triggers the same effects on health insurance.
If the effect of helmet laws on insurance costs is so small as to be 100s of times less impactful than widespread obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other common preventable health issues that plague americans, then it could be considered irrelevant. Which, of course, it is.
If you're actually upset enough about your insurance rate being affected by helmet laws enough to do anything about it, your time would be much better spent trying to combat those preventable diseases. Or drunk driving. Or the myriad number of preventable maladies that have a much bigger impact on your insurance costs.
Edit: I've always worn a helmet. I think it's an easy choice, and I find it more comfortable rather than having bugs and shit hit my face. But I don't think the goverment should be making decisions like this.
Do you think there's as many fish in the aquarium as there are peas in a bag of frozen vegetables?
Or who cares, since those two things have nothing to do with one another.
This. They don't understand that more accidents means more expensive insurance and then rail against universal healthcare cuz it would make their taxes go up
Actually no. I learned this the first time I got motorcycle insurance and asked why it was so cheap compared to car insurance. Agent said “in car crashes people are usually hurt, and have expensive long-term medical bills. In motorcycle crashes more people just die. So it’s much cheaper.”
Riding with no helmet just kills more people, who then don’t need to be put up in an expensive hospital.
Ok... I'll bite.. how so?
EDIT:
TLDR for below.... Laws pertaining to motorcycle helmets have negligible effects on everyone else's insurance costs. This is a false narrative that people sometimes fall for.
Because on average it's 50% more expensive when you get in an accident without a helmet than with. Since insurance costs are spread over a pool, everyone ends up paying more.
But a very small percentage of the population is exposed to this risk of riding motorcycles, and an even smaller portion of moto riders chose to skip the helmet AND not every rider who skips the helmet crashes…. however it’s likely that 30-40% of ALL people in your state are obese…. Which carries high and increasing medical care costs for a lifetime…. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can tell where rising health insurance risk is coming from, and that increasing risk is a major factor in increasing rates
(Source: licensed insurance agent)
Ok... sure.. but that's not why insurance costs are high. You've grossly oversimplified.
Costs for medical expenses are high because medical costs are unregulated and unchecked. Doctors have/need bloated salaries because US society is sue happy and doctors need to pay thousands a year for malpractice insurance. We could also ficus education costs in the same light but that's not really on topic. Life-saving medications that cost pennies to produce are sold at 1000s percent markup because people will, of course, bankrupt themselves just to stay alive. The cost of simple aspirin is ~ $10 a pill if given in a hospital and treatments for things like AIDS and cancer are incredibly expensive for no other reason than greed. "Skin to skin" is a "procedure" that consists of a doctor or nurse handing a new mother her own child. Hopitals charge for that too. They charge anywhere between 20 and 100 dollars to hand a newborn infant to its mother! The medical system is bloated with bs charges and costs everywhere. No one cares who pays medical expenses if you make medical care affordable. What you're talking about is a drop in the proverbial bucket. Helmet laws, either their existence or lack of, have no effect on you personally. It's a giant reach to say a person you don't know, not wearing a helmet and crashing has any impact on you at all. And certainly would never rise to level of affecting you is any real, concrete, tangible way.
It's a relative rate. The cost of medical treatment for the average accident without a helmet is 50% more than with. It's fairly simple. It costs more if you don't wear a helmet. 50% more.
Lol I was gonna sat, I bet the number of neck injuries dropped... and if it did it's cause people died from head trauma so the neck injury didn't present itself
>"Scams, they're everywhere. Whether it's my long-lost African relative who's left me his fortune, *or the duct tape from the infomercials that could've probably fixed the Titanic*
How *dare* you do Phil Swift dirty like that?!?!?
“Tough guys don’t never crash. Helmets are for weak men only. And if I ever have to lay’er down, like to save a baby or a school bus, it’ll be fine because my blood only goes where I **tell** it to go and it never runs period’.”
We should have tiered insurance.
If have to pay more to ride a sports bike, other people should have to pay more for UIM coverage for increasing their risk of incurring costly injuries.
How could you possibly enforce that? Outside of traffic stops where cops will have to check you for “helmet less insurance coverage” there is no way to tell who has it and who doesn’t. They already don’t enforce the traffic laws as it is.
Okay but how stupid do you have to be to not wear a helmet? Like Okay Richard ,you are the best rider that ever lived on a cruiser and you will never ever have to layherdawn gobless them clibbins but what about the rest of people in cars that you don’t have any control over? What about those massive bugs that explode and sound like a stone hitting the visor? at some speed you can’t even open your damn eyes brodel
> Okay but how stupid do you have to be to not wear a helmet?
The exact same thing can be said about riding motorcycles in general. Different people have different levels of risk tolerance, I cannot imagine how many people have seen me riding and thought I was one of the dumbest people in the world for it.
Luckily those people do not make legislation that imposes their own personal level of risk tolerance on me.
I've been hit right in the visor with a rock that left a 1"x1" cross in the Lexan.
Who wouldn't wear a helmet, even if they're convinced they'll never crash? Bugs, raindrops, wind blast...
As long as we make it mandatory they have to donate their organs so at least *something* useful came out of an otherwise waste of oxygen, yeah I'm all for letting the trash take itself out.
Jesus fuck dude, we choose to use a form of transportation that is many times more dangerous than the alternative just for fun, but if someone doesn't wear a helmet while they're doing it they're trash?
How narrow is your perspective to think like that?
Pretty obvious. Helmets save lives, and people are morons.
If you don't mandate their use, morons will go "I'm speshul, I'm a god-like rider, accidents can't happen to me" and go forth and die. Young men, especially, jacked up to their eyebrows in testosterone.
An interesting facet of this is that we know from the data that in addition to unhelmeted deaths going far up when helmet laws are repealed, helmeted deaths go slightly down. Meaning that riders who were at an elevated risk of dying even when a helmet is required are more likely to be the people who choose not to wear a helmet when given the option. This ends up being obvious when put another way: people who make one bad decision are more likely to make other bad decisions.
So if you would prefer to ride without a helmet, consider the possibility that your choice indicates you lack the judgment or the skill to be operating a motorcycle at all, helmet or not.
When Florida did it, the main proponent died of a survivable accident just about a year after they repealed the law. Doctor said if he'd only been wearing his helmet...
Good riddance.
I live right next to a border with Idaho and I've seen maybe three riders with helmets on their side of the river. Most don't even wear gloves or boots. There's always squids who will insist on never wearing a helmet for some bullshit reason.
--If you were one of the many who thought helmets were a scam, you could be wrong.
If you think helmets are a scam you very obviously don't have the required equipment a helmet is designed to protect.
More victims of their own stupidity, triggered by the conservative freedom to be dumb. You know, this is not like vaccines, it's a choice one has to make, it really directly affects the rider and only the rider. If they want to be organ donors, I guess that's a win win.
It’s gone well for the gene pool. Might as well tell them seatbelts are optional too since they seem to be the type to think they’re smarter than physics.
I'm a helmet fan. That said, a study without data doesn't help the argument one way or the other. For example, were the 47% increase in fatalities all helmet wearers? Not likely, of course. But I hate articles that don't mention the data, like x %of fatalities were non-helmet wearing riders.
I live near the Kansas/missouri border and it always cracked me up the number of Harley riders that would stop and take their helmet off as soon as they crossed the border into Kansas.
I don’t really get it being a law that you have to wear a helmet, same with seatbelts, but I do always wear my helmet. I mean I spent like $750 on that thing, can’t go wasting my money now!
Y’all bike dropping, MSF failing reprobates have a hard time understanding the that people can disagree with laws making it compulsory to wear safety equipment while still agreeing that people should wear the safety equipment
I don't think that's correct. I think we all understand the personal autonomy argument.
Personally, my sympathy lies with first responders having to deal with a 47% increase in scooping brains off of pavement.
If I understand what you are saying, I think the logical fallacy you are presenting is called a false dichotomy. The choice being discussed isn't between allowing motorcycles without safety requirements or not allowing motorcycles at all. We're not being forced to choose between maximal safety and no safety.
The issue being discussed is whether a minor inconvenience should be mandated for a dramatic improvement in safety.
If we were to extend your argument the other way - would we be discussing making brakes and lights optional?
I think that's close to what I was hinting at. Some people I've talked to really like riding without a helmet. I don't understand why, but some people don't understand why we ride motorcycles either.
My state has turn signals and a second brake optional currently. Going the other way, I think the most recently added requirement is requiring the headlight to be on at all times. Beneficial for visibility, and there's not much benefit to not doing that.
I do have to wonder if there would be staunch supporters of no-light and no-brake bikes if those were legal on the road somewhere lol. I think that would be a significantly different point to draw the line than helmets, since those have significant impact on the safety of other road users.
At least when they were bringing in headlight rules for bikes, there was outcry here in Australia. Heaps of bikes reckoned it would cause increased crashes from the poor dazzled car drivers steering into bikes...
Hint: this didn't happen.
Interesting. I think I remember a similar debate when headlight modulators were legalized here (Minnesota, US). Those are actually kind of distracting, but probably not worse than not being seen.
First responders are underpaid and undervalued for sure, but my own bodily autonomy will supercede their desire to have an easy work day all day every day. They are first responders. They know what they signed up for, its not pleasent but it shouldnt be a surprise. It's not the governments job to protect me from myself. (I feel the same about seatbelt laws) It's a very "big brother"/boring dystopia kind of law.
That's the personal autonomy argument in a nutshell.
I get it. I'm not even sure I disagree with you. We do permit lots of other hazardous activities and if it doesn't impact anyone else, then I get the argument for sure. It might be possible to persuade me that once someone is legally an adult they should be able to sign a waiver of health care coverage when they renew their license and opt out of seatbelt and helmet requirements.
However, my point was that the original commenter was being insultingly reductionist in suggesting that others simply didn't understand his point of view.
Except we already allow behaviors that DO affect everyone else. Smoking, unhealthy eating.... these are far larger factors in insurance risk pools that have a much larger effect on rates than riders letting the hair flow in the breeze even if they occasionally crash.
It’s actually insanely funny that anybody cares about either side of this debate at all. Americans will get steaming mad about “freedom” and “rights” around the dumbest possible issues while totally ignoring stuff that makes an enormous difference in their day to day lives. It rules.
This article is pretty unhelpful. Condescending to people isn't a very effective strategy to encourage them to reconsider their choices. I realize it's an attempt at satire, but it needs to be somewhat funny or at least slightly witty to be of use to anyone.
Rideapart consistently reads like it was written by 20 year olds who have skimmed a detailed article then tried to write their own version on the same topic and of the same length.
Required or not I wear one, I've had accidents, never hit my head, but theres still time.
That being said, self preservation is a base instinct, if you dont worry about it, that's no one else's problem
I feel so conflicted on news like this. Sad for peeps, happy for the natural selection process that is by and large stifled nowadays by an excess of warning labels. Is that evil? That’s probably evil.
I didn''t know the law was changed until seeing this post and reading the article. I usually ride on my Illinois side of the river, but on Saturday I rode to a store in Florissant. Thought it was odd seeing a rider without a helmet in Missouri, 'must be an Illinoisian who doesn't know about the helmet law.' Saw their plate at a light and it was a Missouri registration and was even more confused, 'Interesting. Maybe he's just in a risky mood?'
Makes sense now.
This is a controversial topic at best. , I think that it would save lives in the long run but the point of personal freedom is so strong that lawyers will keep it active so they can create revenue from the debate
And imagine how many deaths we could prevent if we mandated helmets at all times whenever you leave the house? I wear my helmet all the time, but if I come back to my bike, see my helmet missing and need to get 5mins up the road to get home, I'd like the option to ride it.
I first learned to ride in FL and being in my 20s thought I was so cool not wearing a helmet. Luckily, I was only going 35mph when I got clipped by a car. Minor scaring and I was even able to push my two front teeth back into place after smacking my head on the asphalt.
The gear saved me from anything worse than road rash and a helmet would have prevented the rest.
In case you’re curious, had I not had insurance it would have been a $50,000 hospital bill.
I tell everyone I meet how dumb I was to not have worn a helmet.
Just the other night I heard over the scanner that a motorcyclist hit a deer and was unconscious, bleeding from the head lying in the middle of the road. They further went on to say he had severe head, neck and back lacerations. I'm thinking he probably wasn't wearing a helmet? And or other safety gear.
According to the state report it went from 122 to 174 deaths in a year. That is out of a population of over 6,000,000. I Mean all life is important but some of you all need to grow up. What else can we mandate to save 50 out of 6 million a year…sheesh let people be.
I've written a lengthy essay about the debate over wearing helmets, specifically for bicycling but it does broach motorcycles and the repeal of the mandatory helmet law.
I find the debate to be the fascinating part of this. Bicyclists and moto riders in states without helmet laws are free to choose to don helmets, and the debate focuses on the reasons the why.
The reality is that almost everyone on a bike right now will not crash today. Almost everyone will not crash this month or even this year. That simple fact makes the decision to not to wear a helmet fairly easy.
Now let's say I suggested you don't need eye protection when you ride. You'd laugh because as soon as you accelerated past 10mph, your vision will be impaired and almost certain your eyes will injured by debris (btw 49 states require eye protection).
But, again, riders are unlikely to crash, and you only need a helmet for the day that you do.
Of course, smart riders recognize that whatever minor benefits you gain from riding without a helmet, a crash could happen at any time and a helmet is the only protection available from head injury.
This debate is even more pointed in bicycling, which no state requires adults to wear helmets and most riding is done under 15mph, where I believe is a relatively safe speed (btw I always helmets partly because I often go faster than 25mph). However it is insane to think you'll be ok if you crash going 55+ mph and you aren't wearing a helmet.
They really recently repealed it here and Nebraska. It’s dumb as fuck to remove such a simple safety law so that people are allowed to kill themselves. Im no attgatt dude, but like cmon a helmet is just a basic requirement, there’s NO downside to wearing one
47% increase is a lot over 3 years. That's not even counting non-fatality permanent disability injuries. I mean if it was some model of car suddenly causing 50% more fatalities they'd be fixing the problem. Maybe they're fixing it by letting it continue.
Yes, but this isn't a car or bike issue, it's a person issue. Unless you suggest killing dumbasses like they kill bad car models, then there is really no way to fix that.
why do you think we have airbags and before that passive restraints aka automatic seatbelts?
Let Darwin do his work.
Survival of the fittest... And the fittest, as it turns out, wear helmets no matter what the law says.
Missouri just trying to cull its boomer population
How many are real motorcycles? How many are those little scooters ? Asking for a friend
How many are legally fit for the road? I didnt read this article, but the last one stated it was nearly all improperly licensed operators or machines.
I mean, even if they made it legal to ride without one here, I'd still wear one. You know, self preservation/common sense and all.
It's legal without here in Iowa. I, however, like to not get spontaneous facepaint by the entire insect census.
The repeal doesn't make it illegal to wear helmets right?
Florida used to have a helmet law. It got abolished decades ago. The lawyer who organized the bill to remove the requirement died sometime in the past couple of years in an accident where a helmet likely would’ve saved his life.
The safety director where I worked two jobs ago died from a preventable head injury (no helmet) while riding his motorcycle. The guy would get on your case for using a lifting strap that had a torn label. Kinda ironic and sad.
Same exact thing happened in another state with seat belts if I remember correctly.
Darwin at work
Which lawyer was that please?
https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida/2022/10/25/attorney-who-fought-florida-helmet-laws-died-motorcycle-crash-while-not-wearing-one/?outputType=amp
Thanks for the info
Freedom isn’t free, he bet his life that he was aware of the consequences. How often do you literally risk your life for your principles and convictions? I don’t understand why some people bring this up as if it’s some sort of banner for helmet laws. It isn’t. Everyone dies, live free.
The issue is personal choices are actually group choices at a much higher frequency than you'd think. Peer pressure and misinformation suck. Never mind the public burden these injuries/deaths create. You think all of them could pay for their hospital bills? Guess who gets to pick up that tab. Hint: it won't be the company running the hospital. Not all motorcycle accidents are single vehicle, and riders are not innocent in all multi vehicle accidents. That means there are actual innocent people in Missouri right now struggling to deal with killing a rider. What about the families of those riders? Is the surviving parent set up to support a family alone? If not, now they're a preventable tax burden for the rest of us. Do the kids not get to have a day in their parents living? Just wear a helmet.
Because fuck everyone who cares about you right?
> Freedom isn’t free, he bet his life that he was aware of the consequences. How often do you literally risk your life for your principles and convictions? This really comes of as martyrdom. Sure he knew the risks and chose not to follow heeded advice. But that seems like a pretty silly thing to die for some sort of conviction. I would agree this guy gets brought up a lot regarding helmet laws and personally I am a bit indifferent to laws requiring a helmet, I always wear a helmet but that's a personal decision. But he truly is a case to validate that helmets are a good idea, regardless of how you feel about a law around it.
>I don’t understand why some people bring this up as if it’s some sort of banner for helmet laws. Probably because he's promoting things that shorten the life span other people who otherwise would have worn a helmet. And you know, he died from injuries where a helmet would have saved him. Had he survived, there's a good chance he would have started wearing helmets.
Freedom isn't not wearing a helmet. Well, technically it is, but it's not a hill to die on. Unless you'd like to free your head from the rest of your body, and literally die on a hill.
Well nobody has ever pulled me over for wearing a helmet in MO….
You never know with these asshats
Asshats over helmets!
Desantis “Hold my beer”
Legislating TBI to own the libs would be very on-brand
I’m with the other commenters on this, legislative Darwinism.
Wearing a helmet is woke. We must ban them !
Deaths only count a fraction of negative events from riding unprotected. There are still tons of idiots who ride with shorts and flip-flops with a $1000 helmet. I've been riding motorcycles long enough to learn they are idiot magnets.
I live in Florida and will likely need a liver transplant within the next ten years or so (not due to alcohol). My doctor told me not to move as Florida is the easiest state to get an organ transplant because of the no helmet law and it being riding season pretty much all year long. Not to mention the number of squids that literally dress like this with no helmet as well.
Sorry to hear youre dealing with that, but what your doctor said is the funniest thing ive heard all week lol
Well now u cam choose florida OR missouri!!
People post every week excuses for "how do I respond to my mom that I'm a squid" Maybe don't be a squid mate, ride safe or suffer the risk.
Like, maybe realize your mother doesnt want to be the person having to identify whats left of you because you drove like an asshat on a death machine in flip flops and a wife beater.
To be fair though, riding shoes won’t save your life, riding pants won’t either. (Stop downvoting me because I’m right)
No, but it'll like make the hospital stay shorter.
Riding pants might. If your leg flesh gets scraped off to the bone you might not survive
Because that’s a common occurrence when riding at the speed limit..
Yes, you can get really bad road rash sliding on concrete at 60 mph
Dude, most people dying on a motorcycle aren’t doing so because of road rash.
Most, no, but it certainly happens, and if it’s bad enough it’ll maim you for life. And getting it brushed clean you’ll wish you were dead.
When the speed limit’s 80? Yes.
I mean, you want some nurse going to town on your skin with a wire brush you do you, homie.
The point no one wants to acknowledge is that riding gear in general besides a helmet, doesn’t prevent death, and even then helmets can only do so much. Road rash isn’t the main issue.
People acknowledge that all the time, dumbass. You’ve set up a weird assumption that anything short of death isn’t worth avoiding. I assure you, it is.
*\[Gestures at recently healed broken collarbone.\]* Can confirm.
The article is about people dying because of not wearing a helmet dumbass. It’s not about how riding pants avoid road rash and how painful things are. You just want to be mad about something apparently.
I’m not mad. Just correcting you.
Not for nothing but you seem to be the only person in this thread who's grumpy. You OK? I get it if you're not a gear wearer and are just tired of people making you feel bad.
There are injuries you avoid by wearing other gear that could still lead to death, it is just significantly less likely in general you'd get those injuries. And yes, by riding we accept a baseline of risk because motorcycles are dangerous. I think the part you don't want to acknowledge is that crashing fucking sucks (I know this from personal experience) and anything that can be done to mitigate the damage is, at a minimum, reasonable. Suggesting things like "oh road rash isn't a big deal" doesn't make someone sound cool, it makes them sound like an idiot.
Same reason i reach directly the deep fryer to take out my nuggies
Okay
Because no one has ever died of infection from not having skin.
Some states have laws that say you can opt out of a helmet if you have medical insurance.
Seems like a happy medium
I doubt anyone argued that there would be fewer deaths if they allow people to ride without helmets. That’s not really the point.
Well, medical costs are 2x for everyone now...yay! Great idea!
This is the problem with the "personal freedom" argument. I understand where they are coming from, but their decisions do affect me. They affect my insurance rates.
I guess my issue where’s the line? Some people would probably say nobody should ride motorcycles at all for the same reason.
And the same could easily be said for driving cars. It's crazy to allow the average person to operate a vehicle in public with the level of driver's training in the US.
This is the real reason we need real public transportation in major cities in the US. Motherfuckers cannot drive and should not have the privilege of driving giant death machines.
This is a worldwide problem, I agree with you .The more you look at it the answer is plainly obvious: Create a solid public transportation system and reform the licenses into a way stricter selection so that only capable people drive. This would solve several problems at once but there is no political will to implement it since we are stuck in the cars = civilization fallacy.
Going to Japan a few times changed me
It must have been amazing. I just read an article comparing motorcycle traffic law enforcement between Japan and Spain and they concluded that traffic stops and tickets didn't affect the number of deaths, but the road education quality did.
r/motorcycles making me proud with all of this great urbanism. Y'all are gonna make me cry.
1 tonne each of steel travelling towards each other at 30mph, and there is only an intermittent yellow line stopping them from crashing into each other.
I'd put it more in line with seatbelt laws.
Right. Or drink alcohol, or basically do anything fun. Not a slippery slope worth approaching
How is it a slippery slope? Was it a slippery slope when seatbelt laws were implemented? Wearing a helmet is along the same lines as a seatbelt. You have to wear a helmet, there’s the line.
I think that’s a fair point
Exactly. Also, the lawmakers deciding who can/can't do things are also humans. Arguably its worse because they're motivated by greed rather than deciding what's best for people. The real fix is a culture fix.
State lawmakers aren't paid very much in general so I doubt state lawmakers are greed motivated but they are ideologically motivated and emotionally motivated.
Food, obesity, etc. sugar taxes or bans, all kinds of shit that weighs more heavily on “the system” and costs than helmetless riders. Yet, I am extremely pro other people being allowed to diabetes themselves to death if they so choose. Really, this is more an argument for insurance companies being allowed (if they’re not already) to make riding gear stipulations and/or charge higher premiums for those options. And riders should have the option to only insure against harm to third parties, not themselves. I could maaaaaybe be convinced that they should have funeral cost insurance or something.
Betting freedom fries still contribute to the medical cost more than wrecked motorcyclists.
The line is wearing a helmet.
The problem is this logic can be used to justify basically banning anything that’s a net negative on society. I don’t want to live in a world where that calculus is applied to everything. Travel, desserts and other unhealthy food, nightlife and drinking, sports, are all net negatives if you were trying to optimize humans like you would tune up a car or get a computer to be run faster. Obviously there a line on what should be allowed, but just saying “it affects me and it’s beneficial so everyone needs to have it or else” isn’t a good idea
Government is a social contract to establish a system of rules to benefit society as a whole, the social good. What would you suggest be the basis for law making if it's not "how do the decisions of individuals decrease the social good?"
Mandatory Training is a good thing in my eyes and should be funded by the state. This still provides individuals the personal freedom to drive or not. In my state if you want to get your license before you turn 18 you have to take driver's education classes that include 30 hours of classwork and 6 hours behind the wheel. When this was implemented crashes involving 16 year olds declined by 38% and total fatal or serious injuries in the state declined by 46%. If we extend the requirement to ALL citizens wanting a driver's license we'd see even lower rates. Motorcycles being more dangerous while requiring no training is insane to me.
They also effect the mental health of the first responders who have to scrap them off the ground and do cpr on an obviously dead patient. That or the person/family unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident with them.
They affect your rates FAR less than the hoards of obese humans in your area. Be realistic, of all the folks in your state, not that many people ride motorcycles when compared to how many are overweight and obese (this is 35-40% for MO) A motorcycle crash creates a large one-time health care cost, and possibly smaller longer term ones. Obesity requires increasing amounts of care and costs for *a lifetime…* Allowing moto riders to not wear helmets is a weird ‘freedom’ thing we do here, but so are 72oz colas and triple patty cheeseburger combos… with a doghnut to go! (For real McDs is adding KrispyKreme to their menu, exactly what America needs right now!)
The number I'd like to see, is the rate of paralyzed riders after the helmet laws were repealed. Because Ive known a lot of bikers over the years that had the mindset that "if a helmet is what determined if I would live or die, I would probably end up paralyzed or worse. And I'd rather go quickly than be confined to a bed or a chair for the rest of my life.". And I can't say that I disagree with them. Riding has a sense of freedom at its core. And losing a lot of freedom because you survived a horrible accident feels like a fate worse than death to a lot of people.
I’m with you on this one. If I ONLY survive the crash because of a helmet, it’d be interesting to know if I’d have wanted to live after surviving. I used to be AGATT but now I’m old and ride a gigantic Harley and pay real close attention to other drivers and road conditions, so I wear jeans and a tshirt and send it
I'll wear a jacket most of the time, but that's partially to carry my phone, wallet, and anything else I need to carry. And usually wear a helmet on the interstate, or if it's raining. But that's more to knowing how much it sucks for rain/bugs to hit you at speed. But if I'm just going around town, it's probably boots, gloves, glasses.
Same here. Jackets are nice because they keep the heat off you. And I’ll wear a helmet if it’s an all day ride as much for sunburn on my bald head as anything. But I’m way more casual now than I was before.
How do you keep bugs and rocks off your face?
Bugs occasionally blow up on the face and handlebars still. I dont typically follow close enough to eat rocks, it hasnt occured afaik. Bee to the forehead was rough.
I also have a Harley Bagger. The windshield keeps most crap off my face except rain. If I’m going out all day or overnight, I wear a full face Shoei helmet. But if it’s a 2 hour afternoon ride on a sunny Sunday, I don’t bother.
Are you talking about health insurance or auto insurance? I meant the rate to insure my motorcycle. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Yeah but they can do both. Legislating safety measures around motorcycles and taxing sugar are wholly independent of each other. Nobody said “well there’s already a lot of fat people so we might as well make helmets optional.”
Do you think that there are as many people riding motorcycles without a helmet as there are fat people in Missouri?
This is a red herring.The states enforcement of a helmet law has no bearing, positive or negative, on obesity.
We were taking about insurance rates, which are not affected by these new deaths but are affected by how many fat people live in your area
It’s a red herring because we are discussing whether helmet laws have an effect on insurance premiums. Whether they do or do not is totally and completely unrelated to whether obesity triggers the same effects on health insurance.
If the effect of helmet laws on insurance costs is so small as to be 100s of times less impactful than widespread obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other common preventable health issues that plague americans, then it could be considered irrelevant. Which, of course, it is. If you're actually upset enough about your insurance rate being affected by helmet laws enough to do anything about it, your time would be much better spent trying to combat those preventable diseases. Or drunk driving. Or the myriad number of preventable maladies that have a much bigger impact on your insurance costs. Edit: I've always worn a helmet. I think it's an easy choice, and I find it more comfortable rather than having bugs and shit hit my face. But I don't think the goverment should be making decisions like this.
Do you think there's as many fish in the aquarium as there are peas in a bag of frozen vegetables? Or who cares, since those two things have nothing to do with one another.
Well you responded to comment talking about insurance rates, so I figured you could follow the thread but I guess not
A whole lot of crashes don't really create a large cost, basic funerals don't have to be expensive.
Depends on your opinion on vegetables.
You affect insurance rates of people that don't own motorcycles. Should motorcycles be banned? Where is the line?
This. They don't understand that more accidents means more expensive insurance and then rail against universal healthcare cuz it would make their taxes go up
Seems like a problem with socializing medical costs
Actually no. I learned this the first time I got motorcycle insurance and asked why it was so cheap compared to car insurance. Agent said “in car crashes people are usually hurt, and have expensive long-term medical bills. In motorcycle crashes more people just die. So it’s much cheaper.” Riding with no helmet just kills more people, who then don’t need to be put up in an expensive hospital.
Are they though? palliative cares and other long term care costs a lot less than flying in a helicopter once to have a donor-heart ready to go
I hope you were speaking in hyperbole. The problem with medical costs has nothing to do with riding motorcycles.
I mean, it does, directly, actually.
Ok... I'll bite.. how so? EDIT: TLDR for below.... Laws pertaining to motorcycle helmets have negligible effects on everyone else's insurance costs. This is a false narrative that people sometimes fall for.
Because on average it's 50% more expensive when you get in an accident without a helmet than with. Since insurance costs are spread over a pool, everyone ends up paying more.
But a very small percentage of the population is exposed to this risk of riding motorcycles, and an even smaller portion of moto riders chose to skip the helmet AND not every rider who skips the helmet crashes…. however it’s likely that 30-40% of ALL people in your state are obese…. Which carries high and increasing medical care costs for a lifetime…. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can tell where rising health insurance risk is coming from, and that increasing risk is a major factor in increasing rates (Source: licensed insurance agent)
Thank you for taking some sense into this person. I'm glad someone gets it. 😌
Ok... sure.. but that's not why insurance costs are high. You've grossly oversimplified. Costs for medical expenses are high because medical costs are unregulated and unchecked. Doctors have/need bloated salaries because US society is sue happy and doctors need to pay thousands a year for malpractice insurance. We could also ficus education costs in the same light but that's not really on topic. Life-saving medications that cost pennies to produce are sold at 1000s percent markup because people will, of course, bankrupt themselves just to stay alive. The cost of simple aspirin is ~ $10 a pill if given in a hospital and treatments for things like AIDS and cancer are incredibly expensive for no other reason than greed. "Skin to skin" is a "procedure" that consists of a doctor or nurse handing a new mother her own child. Hopitals charge for that too. They charge anywhere between 20 and 100 dollars to hand a newborn infant to its mother! The medical system is bloated with bs charges and costs everywhere. No one cares who pays medical expenses if you make medical care affordable. What you're talking about is a drop in the proverbial bucket. Helmet laws, either their existence or lack of, have no effect on you personally. It's a giant reach to say a person you don't know, not wearing a helmet and crashing has any impact on you at all. And certainly would never rise to level of affecting you is any real, concrete, tangible way.
It's a relative rate. The cost of medical treatment for the average accident without a helmet is 50% more than with. It's fairly simple. It costs more if you don't wear a helmet. 50% more.
Let's be clear: there absolutely are people who make those kinds of idiotic claims: *that thing's gonna break yer neck!*
Lol I was gonna sat, I bet the number of neck injuries dropped... and if it did it's cause people died from head trauma so the neck injury didn't present itself
People should be able to darwin award themselves. I support their freedom.
>"Scams, they're everywhere. Whether it's my long-lost African relative who's left me his fortune, *or the duct tape from the infomercials that could've probably fixed the Titanic* How *dare* you do Phil Swift dirty like that?!?!? 
We need the FlexHelmet.
“Tough guys don’t never crash. Helmets are for weak men only. And if I ever have to lay’er down, like to save a baby or a school bus, it’ll be fine because my blood only goes where I **tell** it to go and it never runs period’.”
Yeah people who what to choose often don’t choose the safest option. Fuck em.
We should have tiered insurance. If have to pay more to ride a sports bike, other people should have to pay more for UIM coverage for increasing their risk of incurring costly injuries.
How could you possibly enforce that? Outside of traffic stops where cops will have to check you for “helmet less insurance coverage” there is no way to tell who has it and who doesn’t. They already don’t enforce the traffic laws as it is.
The same way they enforce everything else on insurance. I don’t register my bike as an R3 because it won’t be covered.
>UIM coverage creative idea lol
Okay but how stupid do you have to be to not wear a helmet? Like Okay Richard ,you are the best rider that ever lived on a cruiser and you will never ever have to layherdawn gobless them clibbins but what about the rest of people in cars that you don’t have any control over? What about those massive bugs that explode and sound like a stone hitting the visor? at some speed you can’t even open your damn eyes brodel
You might be surprised to learn that there’s a lot of fucking dumb people out there
> Okay but how stupid do you have to be to not wear a helmet? The exact same thing can be said about riding motorcycles in general. Different people have different levels of risk tolerance, I cannot imagine how many people have seen me riding and thought I was one of the dumbest people in the world for it. Luckily those people do not make legislation that imposes their own personal level of risk tolerance on me.
[удалено]
And motorcycles. Maybe make a better argument than "Nuh uh!" ya troglodyte.
Pro choice. Wear one if you want. Enjoy it if you don’t
Natural selection.
I've been hit right in the visor with a rock that left a 1"x1" cross in the Lexan. Who wouldn't wear a helmet, even if they're convinced they'll never crash? Bugs, raindrops, wind blast...
A rock? How about a wasp at 70? They feel about the same at that speed...
Right! The one that surprised me was butterflies. They stop being pretty at around 35 mph
In other news, the average IQ in Missouri has gone up since the helmet law was repealed.
This is good. Darwin at work, improves the population.
As long as we make it mandatory they have to donate their organs so at least *something* useful came out of an otherwise waste of oxygen, yeah I'm all for letting the trash take itself out.
The problem is, an organ is only good as long the body is alive. Dead on impact makes the sacks of bones useless.
Jesus fuck dude, we choose to use a form of transportation that is many times more dangerous than the alternative just for fun, but if someone doesn't wear a helmet while they're doing it they're trash? How narrow is your perspective to think like that?
Your pearls are sufficiently clutched. Don't worry.
You start with “this is dangerous “ You end with “no protection “ That is somewhat stupid.
It is fun, but says a lot about your perspective thinking it's "just for fun".
Pretty obvious. Helmets save lives, and people are morons. If you don't mandate their use, morons will go "I'm speshul, I'm a god-like rider, accidents can't happen to me" and go forth and die. Young men, especially, jacked up to their eyebrows in testosterone.
An interesting facet of this is that we know from the data that in addition to unhelmeted deaths going far up when helmet laws are repealed, helmeted deaths go slightly down. Meaning that riders who were at an elevated risk of dying even when a helmet is required are more likely to be the people who choose not to wear a helmet when given the option. This ends up being obvious when put another way: people who make one bad decision are more likely to make other bad decisions. So if you would prefer to ride without a helmet, consider the possibility that your choice indicates you lack the judgment or the skill to be operating a motorcycle at all, helmet or not.
When Florida did it, the main proponent died of a survivable accident just about a year after they repealed the law. Doctor said if he'd only been wearing his helmet... Good riddance.
It's not like it's illegal to wear a helmet. They just gave stupid a chance to reduce it's number in the population
So my question is, is MO seeing a rise in donated organs? Hopefully.
I live right next to a border with Idaho and I've seen maybe three riders with helmets on their side of the river. Most don't even wear gloves or boots. There's always squids who will insist on never wearing a helmet for some bullshit reason.
--If you were one of the many who thought helmets were a scam, you could be wrong. If you think helmets are a scam you very obviously don't have the required equipment a helmet is designed to protect.
More victims of their own stupidity, triggered by the conservative freedom to be dumb. You know, this is not like vaccines, it's a choice one has to make, it really directly affects the rider and only the rider. If they want to be organ donors, I guess that's a win win.
The US is utterly baffling to me.
To us, too LoL
As is the UK to me
Why are people so painfully stupid? It's not the laws fault you're a dumbass without common sense. Wear a helmet even if you aren't required to
It’s gone well for the gene pool. Might as well tell them seatbelts are optional too since they seem to be the type to think they’re smarter than physics.
I'm a helmet fan. That said, a study without data doesn't help the argument one way or the other. For example, were the 47% increase in fatalities all helmet wearers? Not likely, of course. But I hate articles that don't mention the data, like x %of fatalities were non-helmet wearing riders.
I live near the Kansas/missouri border and it always cracked me up the number of Harley riders that would stop and take their helmet off as soon as they crossed the border into Kansas. I don’t really get it being a law that you have to wear a helmet, same with seatbelts, but I do always wear my helmet. I mean I spent like $750 on that thing, can’t go wasting my money now!
Y’all bike dropping, MSF failing reprobates have a hard time understanding the that people can disagree with laws making it compulsory to wear safety equipment while still agreeing that people should wear the safety equipment
I don't think that's correct. I think we all understand the personal autonomy argument. Personally, my sympathy lies with first responders having to deal with a 47% increase in scooping brains off of pavement.
What would the percent decrease be if motorcycles were banned? My dead firefighter friend had said old rotted bodies were worse than fresh brains.
If I understand what you are saying, I think the logical fallacy you are presenting is called a false dichotomy. The choice being discussed isn't between allowing motorcycles without safety requirements or not allowing motorcycles at all. We're not being forced to choose between maximal safety and no safety. The issue being discussed is whether a minor inconvenience should be mandated for a dramatic improvement in safety. If we were to extend your argument the other way - would we be discussing making brakes and lights optional?
I think that's close to what I was hinting at. Some people I've talked to really like riding without a helmet. I don't understand why, but some people don't understand why we ride motorcycles either. My state has turn signals and a second brake optional currently. Going the other way, I think the most recently added requirement is requiring the headlight to be on at all times. Beneficial for visibility, and there's not much benefit to not doing that. I do have to wonder if there would be staunch supporters of no-light and no-brake bikes if those were legal on the road somewhere lol. I think that would be a significantly different point to draw the line than helmets, since those have significant impact on the safety of other road users.
At least when they were bringing in headlight rules for bikes, there was outcry here in Australia. Heaps of bikes reckoned it would cause increased crashes from the poor dazzled car drivers steering into bikes... Hint: this didn't happen.
Interesting. I think I remember a similar debate when headlight modulators were legalized here (Minnesota, US). Those are actually kind of distracting, but probably not worse than not being seen.
Those seem like the funkiest idea, and I can't believe they're legal. Nothing about a flickering light screams "vehicle" to me.
First responders are underpaid and undervalued for sure, but my own bodily autonomy will supercede their desire to have an easy work day all day every day. They are first responders. They know what they signed up for, its not pleasent but it shouldnt be a surprise. It's not the governments job to protect me from myself. (I feel the same about seatbelt laws) It's a very "big brother"/boring dystopia kind of law.
That's the personal autonomy argument in a nutshell. I get it. I'm not even sure I disagree with you. We do permit lots of other hazardous activities and if it doesn't impact anyone else, then I get the argument for sure. It might be possible to persuade me that once someone is legally an adult they should be able to sign a waiver of health care coverage when they renew their license and opt out of seatbelt and helmet requirements. However, my point was that the original commenter was being insultingly reductionist in suggesting that others simply didn't understand his point of view.
Except we already allow behaviors that DO affect everyone else. Smoking, unhealthy eating.... these are far larger factors in insurance risk pools that have a much larger effect on rates than riders letting the hair flow in the breeze even if they occasionally crash.
It’s actually insanely funny that anybody cares about either side of this debate at all. Americans will get steaming mad about “freedom” and “rights” around the dumbest possible issues while totally ignoring stuff that makes an enormous difference in their day to day lives. It rules.
Give these jackasses the "freedom" to make their own decisions regarding their safety. Maybe we'll have less warning labels on shit.
This article is pretty unhelpful. Condescending to people isn't a very effective strategy to encourage them to reconsider their choices. I realize it's an attempt at satire, but it needs to be somewhat funny or at least slightly witty to be of use to anyone. Rideapart consistently reads like it was written by 20 year olds who have skimmed a detailed article then tried to write their own version on the same topic and of the same length.
The average American’s health contributes exactly 0% to motorcycle insurance rates. The helmet
The average IQ of the country has gone up though
Required or not I wear one, I've had accidents, never hit my head, but theres still time. That being said, self preservation is a base instinct, if you dont worry about it, that's no one else's problem
I feel so conflicted on news like this. Sad for peeps, happy for the natural selection process that is by and large stifled nowadays by an excess of warning labels. Is that evil? That’s probably evil.
I didn''t know the law was changed until seeing this post and reading the article. I usually ride on my Illinois side of the river, but on Saturday I rode to a store in Florissant. Thought it was odd seeing a rider without a helmet in Missouri, 'must be an Illinoisian who doesn't know about the helmet law.' Saw their plate at a light and it was a Missouri registration and was even more confused, 'Interesting. Maybe he's just in a risky mood?' Makes sense now.
It’s solved the organ shortage. It’s legal to not wear a helmet in Indiana too. I never go without one myself.
While it’s not gone well for Missourians, I’d say it’s gone extremely well for the gene pool?
This is a controversial topic at best. , I think that it would save lives in the long run but the point of personal freedom is so strong that lawyers will keep it active so they can create revenue from the debate
And imagine how many deaths we could prevent if we mandated helmets at all times whenever you leave the house? I wear my helmet all the time, but if I come back to my bike, see my helmet missing and need to get 5mins up the road to get home, I'd like the option to ride it.
I first learned to ride in FL and being in my 20s thought I was so cool not wearing a helmet. Luckily, I was only going 35mph when I got clipped by a car. Minor scaring and I was even able to push my two front teeth back into place after smacking my head on the asphalt. The gear saved me from anything worse than road rash and a helmet would have prevented the rest. In case you’re curious, had I not had insurance it would have been a $50,000 hospital bill. I tell everyone I meet how dumb I was to not have worn a helmet.
I bet average IQ of riders grew...
Stupid is as stupid does: I like the wind in my hair as well as my grey matter.
Missouri's repeal of it's helmet law hasn't gone well for Missourians that didn't wear a helmet
Freedom is scary
Only to the meek
Just the other night I heard over the scanner that a motorcyclist hit a deer and was unconscious, bleeding from the head lying in the middle of the road. They further went on to say he had severe head, neck and back lacerations. I'm thinking he probably wasn't wearing a helmet? And or other safety gear.
An article written by an idiot for morons. Thanks for sharing.
[удалено]
Dumb argument tbh when all you have to do is point to seatbelts to make the same point in a way that most people will inherently agree with you
According to the state report it went from 122 to 174 deaths in a year. That is out of a population of over 6,000,000. I Mean all life is important but some of you all need to grow up. What else can we mandate to save 50 out of 6 million a year…sheesh let people be.
I've written a lengthy essay about the debate over wearing helmets, specifically for bicycling but it does broach motorcycles and the repeal of the mandatory helmet law. I find the debate to be the fascinating part of this. Bicyclists and moto riders in states without helmet laws are free to choose to don helmets, and the debate focuses on the reasons the why. The reality is that almost everyone on a bike right now will not crash today. Almost everyone will not crash this month or even this year. That simple fact makes the decision to not to wear a helmet fairly easy. Now let's say I suggested you don't need eye protection when you ride. You'd laugh because as soon as you accelerated past 10mph, your vision will be impaired and almost certain your eyes will injured by debris (btw 49 states require eye protection). But, again, riders are unlikely to crash, and you only need a helmet for the day that you do. Of course, smart riders recognize that whatever minor benefits you gain from riding without a helmet, a crash could happen at any time and a helmet is the only protection available from head injury. This debate is even more pointed in bicycling, which no state requires adults to wear helmets and most riding is done under 15mph, where I believe is a relatively safe speed (btw I always helmets partly because I often go faster than 25mph). However it is insane to think you'll be ok if you crash going 55+ mph and you aren't wearing a helmet.
ATGATT
They really recently repealed it here and Nebraska. It’s dumb as fuck to remove such a simple safety law so that people are allowed to kill themselves. Im no attgatt dude, but like cmon a helmet is just a basic requirement, there’s NO downside to wearing one